Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 76 | 39 | 37 |
2nd | 60 | 33 | 27 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 761 | control, N = 391 | treatment, N = 371 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 76 | 41.40 ± 18.51 (21 - 148) | 42.47 ± 21.27 (22 - 148) | 40.26 ± 15.28 (21 - 70) | 0.605 |
gender | 76 | 0.085 | |||
female | 57 (75%) | 26 (67%) | 31 (84%) | ||
male | 19 (25%) | 13 (33%) | 6 (16%) | ||
occupation | 76 | 0.865 | |||
civil | 3 (3.9%) | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
clerk | 15 (20%) | 7 (18%) | 8 (22%) | ||
homemaker | 7 (9.2%) | 2 (5.1%) | 5 (14%) | ||
manager | 10 (13%) | 6 (15%) | 4 (11%) | ||
other | 9 (12%) | 4 (10%) | 5 (14%) | ||
professional | 11 (14%) | 8 (21%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
retired | 3 (3.9%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
service | 4 (5.3%) | 2 (5.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
student | 12 (16%) | 6 (15%) | 6 (16%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
working_status | 76 | 52 (68%) | 29 (74%) | 23 (62%) | 0.253 |
marital | 76 | >0.999 | |||
divorced | 3 (3.9%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
married | 21 (28%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (27%) | ||
single | 51 (67%) | 26 (67%) | 25 (68%) | ||
widowed | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 76 | >0.999 | |||
married | 21 (28%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (27%) | ||
other | 4 (5.3%) | 2 (5.1%) | 2 (5.4%) | ||
single | 51 (67%) | 26 (67%) | 25 (68%) | ||
education | 76 | 0.034 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 11 (14%) | 2 (5.1%) | 9 (24%) | ||
post-secondary | 13 (17%) | 9 (23%) | 4 (11%) | ||
university | 52 (68%) | 28 (72%) | 24 (65%) | ||
university_edu | 76 | 52 (68%) | 28 (72%) | 24 (65%) | 0.516 |
family_income | 76 | 0.518 | |||
0_10000 | 9 (12%) | 4 (10%) | 5 (14%) | ||
10001_20000 | 15 (20%) | 5 (13%) | 10 (27%) | ||
20001_30000 | 13 (17%) | 8 (21%) | 5 (14%) | ||
30001_40000 | 10 (13%) | 5 (13%) | 5 (14%) | ||
40000_above | 29 (38%) | 17 (44%) | 12 (32%) | ||
high_income | 76 | 39 (51%) | 22 (56%) | 17 (46%) | 0.362 |
religion | 76 | 0.524 | |||
buddhism | 5 (6.6%) | 4 (10%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
catholic | 5 (6.6%) | 2 (5.1%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
christianity | 26 (34%) | 12 (31%) | 14 (38%) | ||
nil | 38 (50%) | 21 (54%) | 17 (46%) | ||
other | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
taoism | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.7%) | ||
religion_r | 76 | 0.699 | |||
christianity | 31 (41%) | 14 (36%) | 17 (46%) | ||
nil | 38 (50%) | 21 (54%) | 17 (46%) | ||
other | 7 (9.2%) | 4 (10%) | 3 (8.1%) | ||
source | 76 | 0.012 | |||
bokss | 34 (45%) | 14 (36%) | 20 (54%) | ||
12 (16%) | 10 (26%) | 2 (5.4%) | |||
5 (6.6%) | 5 (13%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 11 (14%) | 4 (10%) | 7 (19%) | ||
refresh | 14 (18%) | 6 (15%) | 8 (22%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 761 | control, N = 391 | treatment, N = 371 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 76 | 19.49 ± 2.22 (15 - 25) | 19.18 ± 2.14 (15 - 24) | 19.81 ± 2.30 (15 - 25) | 0.218 |
setv | 76 | 11.16 ± 1.67 (8 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.63 (8 - 14) | 11.30 ± 1.71 (8 - 15) | 0.481 |
maks | 76 | 44.67 ± 3.71 (36 - 54) | 44.26 ± 3.65 (36 - 52) | 45.11 ± 3.77 (38 - 54) | 0.321 |
ibs | 76 | 15.58 ± 2.19 (9 - 20) | 15.62 ± 2.14 (11 - 20) | 15.54 ± 2.28 (9 - 20) | 0.883 |
ers_e | 76 | 12.28 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.46 (9 - 15) | 12.22 ± 1.36 (9 - 15) | 0.718 |
ers_r | 76 | 11.34 ± 1.46 (8 - 15) | 11.33 ± 1.36 (8 - 14) | 11.35 ± 1.57 (8 - 15) | 0.957 |
pss_pa | 76 | 44.93 ± 4.60 (30 - 54) | 44.41 ± 4.59 (30 - 54) | 45.49 ± 4.60 (31 - 54) | 0.311 |
pss_ps | 76 | 25.37 ± 7.39 (12 - 42) | 26.51 ± 7.71 (14 - 42) | 24.16 ± 6.92 (12 - 41) | 0.167 |
pss | 76 | 43.43 ± 11.26 (21 - 72) | 45.10 ± 11.69 (23 - 72) | 41.68 ± 10.65 (21 - 67) | 0.186 |
rki_responsible | 76 | 21.29 ± 3.93 (13 - 29) | 20.82 ± 4.25 (13 - 29) | 21.78 ± 3.54 (14 - 28) | 0.288 |
rki_nonlinear | 76 | 13.45 ± 2.77 (7 - 22) | 13.21 ± 2.48 (7 - 20) | 13.70 ± 3.06 (8 - 22) | 0.438 |
rki_peer | 76 | 20.47 ± 2.22 (16 - 25) | 20.54 ± 2.22 (16 - 25) | 20.41 ± 2.24 (16 - 25) | 0.796 |
rki_expect | 76 | 4.66 ± 0.99 (3 - 7) | 4.46 ± 0.94 (3 - 6) | 4.86 ± 1.00 (3 - 7) | 0.075 |
rki | 76 | 59.87 ± 5.89 (50 - 80) | 59.03 ± 5.89 (50 - 76) | 60.76 ± 5.83 (50 - 80) | 0.202 |
raq_possible | 76 | 15.55 ± 1.91 (12 - 20) | 15.64 ± 2.03 (12 - 20) | 15.46 ± 1.79 (12 - 20) | 0.681 |
raq_difficulty | 76 | 12.34 ± 1.45 (9 - 15) | 12.44 ± 1.48 (9 - 15) | 12.24 ± 1.42 (9 - 15) | 0.565 |
raq | 76 | 27.89 ± 3.10 (21 - 35) | 28.08 ± 3.26 (21 - 35) | 27.70 ± 2.95 (21 - 35) | 0.602 |
who | 76 | 15.05 ± 4.36 (7 - 25) | 14.95 ± 4.29 (8 - 25) | 15.16 ± 4.49 (7 - 25) | 0.833 |
phq | 76 | 3.46 ± 3.66 (0 - 18) | 3.72 ± 3.68 (0 - 14) | 3.19 ± 3.66 (0 - 18) | 0.532 |
gad | 76 | 3.12 ± 3.13 (0 - 12) | 3.28 ± 3.14 (0 - 12) | 2.95 ± 3.16 (0 - 12) | 0.643 |
nb_pcs | 76 | 50.60 ± 7.88 (25 - 63) | 51.43 ± 7.63 (25 - 63) | 49.72 ± 8.14 (27 - 61) | 0.349 |
nb_mcs | 76 | 50.94 ± 8.78 (22 - 70) | 50.39 ± 9.06 (22 - 68) | 51.52 ± 8.57 (35 - 70) | 0.578 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.332 | 18.5, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.631 | 0.476 | -0.301, 1.56 | 0.187 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.321 | 0.401 | -1.11, 0.465 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.053 | 0.591 | -1.11, 1.21 | 0.928 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.268 | 10.5, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.272 | 0.384 | -0.481, 1.02 | 0.481 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.253 | 0.272 | -0.281, 0.787 | 0.356 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.132 | 0.403 | -0.922, 0.658 | 0.744 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.3 | 0.627 | 43.0, 45.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.852 | 0.898 | -0.909, 2.61 | 0.346 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.502 | -0.940, 1.03 | 0.932 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.388 | 0.744 | -1.07, 1.85 | 0.604 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.335 | 15.0, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.075 | 0.480 | -1.02, 0.867 | 0.876 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.190 | 0.322 | -0.441, 0.821 | 0.557 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.319 | 0.477 | -0.616, 1.25 | 0.506 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.226 | 11.9, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.117 | 0.324 | -0.752, 0.518 | 0.718 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.524 | 0.188 | -0.894, -0.155 | 0.007 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.537 | 0.280 | -0.011, 1.09 | 0.059 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.3 | 0.230 | 10.9, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.018 | 0.330 | -0.628, 0.664 | 0.956 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.155 | 0.257 | -0.658, 0.349 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.363 | 0.379 | -0.380, 1.11 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.4 | 0.725 | 43.0, 45.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 1.040 | -0.962, 3.11 | 0.303 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.29 | 0.804 | -2.87, 0.283 | 0.113 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.028 | 1.188 | -2.30, 2.36 | 0.981 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.5 | 1.175 | 24.2, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.35 | 1.684 | -5.65, 0.951 | 0.166 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.16 | 1.135 | -1.07, 3.38 | 0.312 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 1.681 | -4.46, 2.13 | 0.491 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.1 | 1.750 | 41.7, 48.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.43 | 2.509 | -8.34, 1.49 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.46 | 1.651 | -0.772, 5.70 | 0.141 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.22 | 2.445 | -6.01, 3.58 | 0.621 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.8 | 0.587 | 19.7, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.963 | 0.841 | -0.685, 2.61 | 0.255 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.026 | 0.615 | -1.18, 1.23 | 0.966 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.415 | 0.910 | -2.20, 1.37 | 0.650 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.458 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.498 | 0.657 | -0.790, 1.79 | 0.451 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.314 | 0.445 | -1.19, 0.558 | 0.483 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.496 | 0.659 | -0.796, 1.79 | 0.455 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.364 | 19.8, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.133 | 0.521 | -1.15, 0.888 | 0.799 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.020 | 0.365 | -0.696, 0.736 | 0.956 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.155 | 0.540 | -0.904, 1.21 | 0.775 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.46 | 0.153 | 4.16, 4.76 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.403 | 0.220 | -0.028, 0.834 | 0.069 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.177 | 0.197 | -0.210, 0.563 | 0.374 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.026 | 0.290 | -0.543, 0.596 | 0.928 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.052 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.0 | 0.885 | 57.3, 60.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.73 | 1.268 | -0.754, 4.22 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.103 | 0.920 | -1.91, 1.70 | 0.911 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.231 | 1.361 | -2.44, 2.90 | 0.866 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.293 | 15.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.182 | 0.419 | -1.00, 0.641 | 0.666 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.307 | 0.313 | -0.921, 0.307 | 0.331 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.687 | 0.463 | -0.220, 1.59 | 0.143 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.232 | 12.0, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.193 | 0.333 | -0.845, 0.459 | 0.564 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.017 | 0.222 | -0.453, 0.419 | 0.940 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.186 | 0.329 | -0.459, 0.831 | 0.574 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.489 | 27.1, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.374 | 0.701 | -1.75, 0.999 | 0.594 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.286 | 0.469 | -1.20, 0.633 | 0.544 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.864 | 0.694 | -0.497, 2.22 | 0.218 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.696 | 13.6, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.213 | 0.997 | -1.74, 2.17 | 0.831 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.232 | 0.570 | -1.35, 0.884 | 0.685 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.072 | 0.845 | -1.73, 1.58 | 0.933 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.72 | 0.558 | 2.62, 4.81 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.529 | 0.800 | -2.10, 1.04 | 0.510 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.021 | 0.386 | -0.735, 0.778 | 0.956 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.023 | 0.573 | -1.10, 1.15 | 0.968 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.28 | 0.511 | 2.28, 4.28 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.336 | 0.732 | -1.77, 1.10 | 0.647 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.166 | 0.424 | -0.664, 0.996 | 0.696 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.154 | 0.628 | -1.08, 1.39 | 0.807 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.4 | 1.208 | 49.1, 53.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 1.731 | -5.10, 1.69 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.539 | 0.896 | -2.30, 1.22 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.38 | 1.331 | -0.227, 4.99 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.4 | 1.358 | 47.7, 53.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.13 | 1.946 | -2.68, 4.95 | 0.562 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.178 | 1.256 | -2.64, 2.28 | 0.888 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.776 | 1.861 | -4.42, 2.87 | 0.678 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.18 (95% CI [18.53, 19.83], t(130) = 57.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.56], t(130) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.46], t(130) = -0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.21], t(130) = 0.09, p = 0.928; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.03 (95% CI [10.50, 11.55], t(130) = 41.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.02], t(130) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.79], t(130) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.66], t(130) = -0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.26 (95% CI [43.03, 45.48], t(130) = 70.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.61], t(130) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.03], t(130) = 0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.85], t(130) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.62 (95% CI [14.96, 16.27], t(130) = 46.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.87], t(130) = -0.16, p = 0.876; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82], t(130) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.25], t(130) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.89, 12.78], t(130) = 54.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.52], t(130) = -0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.15], t(130) = -2.78, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.09], t(130) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-7.67e-03, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.33 (95% CI [10.88, 11.78], t(130) = 49.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.66], t(130) = 0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.35], t(130) = -0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.11], t(130) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.41 (95% CI [42.99, 45.83], t(130) = 61.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.11], t(130) = 1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.87, 0.28], t(130) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.30, 2.36], t(130) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 6.09e-03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.51 (95% CI [24.21, 28.82], t(130) = 22.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.35, 95% CI [-5.65, 0.95], t(130) = -1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.07, 3.38], t(130) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-4.46, 2.13], t(130) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 45.10 (95% CI [41.67, 48.53], t(130) = 25.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.43, 95% CI [-8.34, 1.49], t(130) = -1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-0.77, 5.70], t(130) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-6.01, 3.58], t(130) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.82 (95% CI [19.67, 21.97], t(130) = 35.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.61], t(130) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.23], t(130) = 0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = 7.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.20, 1.37], t(130) = -0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.21 (95% CI [12.31, 14.10], t(130) = 28.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.79], t(130) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.56], t(130) = -0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.79], t(130) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.23e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.54 (95% CI [19.83, 21.25], t(130) = 56.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.89], t(130) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.74], t(130) = 0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 8.91e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.21], t(130) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.46 (95% CI [4.16, 4.76], t(130) = 29.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.83], t(130) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.56], t(130) = 0.90, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.58])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.60], t(130) = 0.09, p = 0.928; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.03 (95% CI [57.29, 60.76], t(130) = 66.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.73, 95% CI [-0.75, 4.22], t(130) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.70], t(130) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-2.44, 2.90], t(130) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.64 (95% CI [15.07, 16.21], t(130) = 53.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.64], t(130) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.31], t(130) = -0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.59], t(130) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.88])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.44 (95% CI [11.98, 12.89], t(130) = 53.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.46], t(130) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42], t(130) = -0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.83], t(130) = 0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [27.12, 29.04], t(130) = 57.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.00], t(130) = -0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.63], t(130) = -0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.22], t(130) = 1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.58, 16.31], t(130) = 21.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.74, 2.17], t(130) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.88], t(130) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.58], t(130) = -0.08, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.72 (95% CI [2.62, 4.81], t(130) = 6.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.04], t(130) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.78], t(130) = 0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 6.10e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.15], t(130) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 6.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [2.28, 4.28], t(130) = 6.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.77, 1.10], t(130) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.00], t(130) = 0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.39], t(130) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.43 (95% CI [49.06, 53.80], t(130) = 42.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-5.10, 1.69], t(130) = -0.99, p = 0.325; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.22], t(130) = -0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.38, 95% CI [-0.23, 4.99], t(130) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.39 (95% CI [47.73, 53.05], t(130) = 37.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-2.68, 4.95], t(130) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-2.64, 2.28], t(130) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-4.42, 2.87], t(130) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 582.067 | 590.805 | -288.034 | 576.067 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 584.285 | 601.761 | -286.143 | 572.285 | 3.782 | 3 | 0.286 |
setv | null | 3 | 508.093 | 516.831 | -251.046 | 502.093 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 512.680 | 530.156 | -250.340 | 500.680 | 1.412 | 3 | 0.703 |
maks | null | 3 | 716.727 | 725.465 | -355.364 | 710.727 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 720.674 | 738.150 | -354.337 | 708.674 | 2.053 | 3 | 0.561 |
ibs | null | 3 | 564.826 | 573.564 | -279.413 | 558.826 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 568.365 | 585.841 | -278.182 | 556.365 | 2.462 | 3 | 0.482 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 449.093 | 457.831 | -221.547 | 443.093 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 447.400 | 464.876 | -217.700 | 435.400 | 7.694 | 3 | 0.053 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 474.106 | 482.844 | -234.053 | 468.106 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 478.815 | 496.291 | -233.407 | 466.815 | 1.291 | 3 | 0.731 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 790.996 | 799.734 | -392.498 | 784.996 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 790.737 | 808.213 | -389.369 | 778.737 | 6.259 | 3 | 0.100 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 908.657 | 917.395 | -451.329 | 902.657 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 910.116 | 927.592 | -449.058 | 898.116 | 4.541 | 3 | 0.209 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,016.042 | 1,024.780 | -505.021 | 1,010.042 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,016.233 | 1,033.709 | -502.116 | 1,004.233 | 5.810 | 3 | 0.121 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 723.955 | 732.693 | -358.978 | 717.955 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 728.452 | 745.928 | -358.226 | 716.452 | 1.503 | 3 | 0.681 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 650.546 | 659.284 | -322.273 | 644.546 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 654.478 | 671.954 | -321.239 | 642.478 | 2.068 | 3 | 0.558 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 588.740 | 597.478 | -291.370 | 582.740 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 594.514 | 611.990 | -291.257 | 582.514 | 0.226 | 3 | 0.973 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 378.907 | 387.645 | -186.454 | 372.907 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 378.216 | 395.692 | -183.108 | 366.216 | 6.691 | 3 | 0.082 |
rki | null | 3 | 836.120 | 844.857 | -415.060 | 830.120 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 839.470 | 856.946 | -413.735 | 827.470 | 2.649 | 3 | 0.449 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 537.319 | 546.057 | -265.660 | 531.319 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 541.000 | 558.476 | -264.500 | 529.000 | 2.320 | 3 | 0.509 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 462.766 | 471.504 | -228.383 | 456.766 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 468.101 | 485.577 | -228.050 | 456.101 | 0.665 | 3 | 0.881 |
raq | null | 3 | 666.506 | 675.244 | -330.253 | 660.506 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 670.828 | 688.304 | -329.414 | 658.828 | 1.677 | 3 | 0.642 |
who | null | 3 | 745.911 | 754.649 | -369.956 | 739.911 | |||
who | random | 6 | 751.450 | 768.926 | -369.725 | 739.450 | 0.462 | 3 | 0.927 |
phq | null | 3 | 668.126 | 676.864 | -331.063 | 662.126 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 673.638 | 691.114 | -330.819 | 661.638 | 0.488 | 3 | 0.921 |
gad | null | 3 | 663.554 | 672.292 | -328.777 | 657.554 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 668.728 | 686.204 | -328.364 | 656.728 | 0.826 | 3 | 0.843 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 889.229 | 897.967 | -441.614 | 883.229 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 891.176 | 908.652 | -439.588 | 879.176 | 4.053 | 3 | 0.256 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 940.076 | 948.814 | -467.038 | 934.076 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 945.333 | 962.808 | -466.666 | 933.333 | 0.743 | 3 | 0.863 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 39 | 19.18 ± 2.07 | 37 | 19.81 ± 2.07 | 0.187 | -0.378 | ||
sets | 2nd | 33 | 18.86 ± 2.06 | 0.192 | 27 | 19.54 ± 2.05 | 0.160 | 0.201 | -0.410 |
setv | 1st | 39 | 11.03 ± 1.67 | 37 | 11.30 ± 1.67 | 0.481 | -0.241 | ||
setv | 2nd | 33 | 11.28 ± 1.64 | -0.225 | 27 | 11.42 ± 1.61 | -0.108 | 0.740 | -0.124 |
maks | 1st | 39 | 44.26 ± 3.91 | 37 | 45.11 ± 3.91 | 0.346 | -0.413 | ||
maks | 2nd | 33 | 44.30 ± 3.76 | -0.021 | 27 | 45.54 ± 3.63 | -0.210 | 0.198 | -0.602 |
ibs | 1st | 39 | 15.62 ± 2.09 | 37 | 15.54 ± 2.09 | 0.876 | 0.056 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 33 | 15.81 ± 2.04 | -0.143 | 27 | 16.05 ± 1.99 | -0.383 | 0.641 | -0.184 |
ers_e | 1st | 39 | 12.33 ± 1.41 | 37 | 12.22 ± 1.41 | 0.718 | 0.151 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 33 | 11.81 ± 1.36 | 0.677 | 27 | 12.23 ± 1.32 | -0.017 | 0.228 | -0.542 |
ers_r | 1st | 39 | 11.33 ± 1.44 | 37 | 11.35 ± 1.44 | 0.956 | -0.017 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 33 | 11.18 ± 1.42 | 0.145 | 27 | 11.56 ± 1.40 | -0.196 | 0.299 | -0.357 |
pss_pa | 1st | 39 | 44.41 ± 4.53 | 37 | 45.49 ± 4.53 | 0.303 | -0.323 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 33 | 43.12 ± 4.46 | 0.387 | 27 | 44.22 ± 4.41 | 0.379 | 0.339 | -0.331 |
pss_ps | 1st | 39 | 26.51 ± 7.34 | 37 | 24.16 ± 7.34 | 0.166 | 0.502 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 33 | 27.67 ± 7.15 | -0.247 | 27 | 24.16 ± 7.00 | 0.001 | 0.058 | 0.750 |
pss | 1st | 39 | 45.10 ± 10.93 | 37 | 41.68 ± 10.93 | 0.175 | 0.503 | ||
pss | 2nd | 33 | 47.57 ± 10.62 | -0.362 | 27 | 42.92 ± 10.38 | -0.183 | 0.091 | 0.682 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 39 | 20.82 ± 3.66 | 37 | 21.78 ± 3.66 | 0.254 | -0.378 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 33 | 20.85 ± 3.59 | -0.010 | 27 | 21.40 ± 3.54 | 0.153 | 0.554 | -0.215 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 39 | 13.21 ± 2.86 | 37 | 13.70 ± 2.86 | 0.451 | -0.271 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 33 | 12.89 ± 2.79 | 0.171 | 27 | 13.88 ± 2.73 | -0.099 | 0.168 | -0.541 |
rki_peer | 1st | 39 | 20.54 ± 2.27 | 37 | 20.41 ± 2.27 | 0.799 | 0.088 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 33 | 20.56 ± 2.22 | -0.013 | 27 | 20.58 ± 2.18 | -0.116 | 0.970 | -0.014 |
rki_expect | 1st | 39 | 4.46 ± 0.96 | 37 | 4.86 ± 0.96 | 0.069 | -0.489 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 33 | 4.64 ± 0.96 | -0.214 | 27 | 5.07 ± 0.95 | -0.246 | 0.085 | -0.521 |
rki | 1st | 39 | 59.03 ± 5.53 | 37 | 60.76 ± 5.53 | 0.175 | -0.455 | ||
rki | 2nd | 33 | 58.92 ± 5.41 | 0.027 | 27 | 60.88 ± 5.33 | -0.034 | 0.162 | -0.515 |
raq_possible | 1st | 39 | 15.64 ± 1.83 | 37 | 15.46 ± 1.83 | 0.666 | 0.140 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 33 | 15.33 ± 1.80 | 0.236 | 27 | 15.84 ± 1.77 | -0.293 | 0.276 | -0.390 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 39 | 12.44 ± 1.45 | 37 | 12.24 ± 1.45 | 0.564 | 0.210 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 33 | 12.42 ± 1.41 | 0.018 | 27 | 12.41 ± 1.38 | -0.185 | 0.986 | 0.007 |
raq | 1st | 39 | 28.08 ± 3.05 | 37 | 27.70 ± 3.05 | 0.594 | 0.194 | ||
raq | 2nd | 33 | 27.79 ± 2.97 | 0.148 | 27 | 28.28 ± 2.91 | -0.299 | 0.522 | -0.253 |
who | 1st | 39 | 14.95 ± 4.35 | 37 | 15.16 ± 4.35 | 0.831 | -0.091 | ||
who | 2nd | 33 | 14.72 ± 4.18 | 0.099 | 27 | 14.86 ± 4.04 | 0.130 | 0.894 | -0.061 |
phq | 1st | 39 | 3.72 ± 3.49 | 37 | 3.19 ± 3.49 | 0.510 | 0.335 | ||
phq | 2nd | 33 | 3.74 ± 3.31 | -0.014 | 27 | 3.23 ± 3.18 | -0.028 | 0.549 | 0.320 |
gad | 1st | 39 | 3.28 ± 3.19 | 37 | 2.95 ± 3.19 | 0.647 | 0.193 | ||
gad | 2nd | 33 | 3.45 ± 3.07 | -0.095 | 27 | 3.27 ± 2.97 | -0.184 | 0.817 | 0.104 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 39 | 51.43 ± 7.54 | 37 | 49.72 ± 7.54 | 0.327 | 0.464 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 33 | 50.89 ± 7.20 | 0.147 | 27 | 51.57 ± 6.93 | -0.501 | 0.713 | -0.184 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 39 | 50.39 ± 8.48 | 37 | 51.52 ± 8.48 | 0.562 | -0.219 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 33 | 50.21 ± 8.23 | 0.034 | 27 | 50.57 ± 8.03 | 0.184 | 0.866 | -0.069 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(119.33) = 1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.57)
2st
t(127.85) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.74)
setv
1st
t(105.25) = 0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.03)
2st
t(119.96) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.97)
maks
1st
t(92.17) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.64)
2st
t(107.13) = 1.30, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.66 to 3.14)
ibs
1st
t(101.53) = -0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.88)
2st
t(116.98) = 0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.28)
ers_e
1st
t(93.94) = -0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.53)
2st
t(109.30) = 1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.11)
ers_r
1st
t(112.56) = 0.05, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.67)
2st
t(124.61) = 1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.10)
pss_pa
1st
t(111.92) = 1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.14)
2st
t(124.26) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.38)
pss_ps
1st
t(101.86) = -1.40, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-5.69 to 0.99)
2st
t(117.27) = -1.92, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-7.15 to 0.12)
pss
1st
t(100.38) = -1.37, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-8.40 to 1.55)
2st
t(115.97) = -1.71, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-10.04 to 0.75)
rki_responsible
1st
t(107.56) = 1.15, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.63)
2st
t(121.58) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.38)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(102.19) = 0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.80)
2st
t(117.55) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.41)
rki_peer
1st
t(104.45) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.90)
2st
t(119.36) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.15)
rki_expect
1st
t(124.74) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.84)
2st
t(129.87) = 1.73, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.92)
rki
1st
t(106.92) = 1.37, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.78 to 4.24)
2st
t(121.15) = 1.41, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.80 to 4.72)
raq_possible
1st
t(109.12) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.65)
2st
t(122.59) = 1.09, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.42)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(101.34) = -0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.47)
2st
t(116.82) = -0.02, p = 0.986, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.71)
raq
1st
t(101.39) = -0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.02)
2st
t(116.87) = 0.64, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.00)
who
1st
t(93.12) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.19)
2st
t(108.31) = 0.13, p = 0.894, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.97 to 2.25)
phq
1st
t(87.11) = -0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.06)
2st
t(100.01) = -0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.16)
gad
1st
t(93.67) = -0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.12)
2st
t(108.97) = -0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.37)
nb_pcs
1st
t(89.34) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.14 to 1.73)
2st
t(103.32) = 0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.31)
nb_mcs
1st
t(99.24) = 0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.73 to 4.99)
2st
t(114.92) = 0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.82 to 4.53)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(68.27) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.60)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(65.23) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.72)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(62.42) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.53)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(64.44) = 1.44, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.21)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(62.81) = 0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.43)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(66.77) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.77)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(66.64) = -1.44, p = 0.154, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.02 to 0.48)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(64.51) = -0.00, p = 0.996, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.49 to 2.48)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(64.20) = 0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.36 to 4.86)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(65.71) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.95)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(64.58) = 0.37, p = 0.711, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.15)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(65.06) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.97)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(69.60) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.63)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(65.58) = 0.13, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.13)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(66.04) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.06)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(64.40) = 0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.66)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(64.41) = 1.13, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.60)
who
1st vs 2st
t(62.63) = -0.49, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.95)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(61.27) = 0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.89)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(62.75) = 0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.25)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(61.78) = 1.87, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.81)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(63.96) = -0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.70 to 1.80)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(64.14) = -0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.48)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(62.23) = 0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.80)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(60.55) = 0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(61.75) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.83)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(60.78) = -2.78, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-0.90 to -0.15)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(63.18) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.36)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(63.10) = -1.61, p = 0.113, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.90 to 0.32)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(61.79) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.11 to 3.43)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(61.60) = 1.49, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.84 to 5.77)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(62.52) = 0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.26)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(61.83) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.58)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(62.12) = 0.05, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.75)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(65.03) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.57)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(62.44) = -0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.74)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(62.73) = -0.98, p = 0.332, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.32)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(61.73) = -0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.43)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(61.73) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.65)
who
1st vs 2st
t(60.67) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.91)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(59.88) = 0.06, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.79)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(60.74) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.01)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(60.17) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.25)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(61.46) = -0.14, p = 0.888, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.69 to 2.34)